topic = [[Administration of government on the ballot|Administration of gov't]]|

topic = [[Administration of government on the ballot|Administration of gov't]]|

−

status = On the ballot|

+

status = {{approved}}|

−

}}{{tnr}}The '''Louisiana Public Retirement Bill Filing Amendment''' was on the [[Louisiana 2012 ballot measures|November 6, 2012]] statewide ballot in [[Louisiana]] as a {{lrcafull}}. If enacted, the measure would require more advance filing for bills involving public employee retirement. The measure was sent to the ballot during the [[Dates of 2012 state legislative sessions|2012 state legislative session]] as SB 21.

+

}}{{tnr}}The '''Louisiana Public Retirement Bill Filing Amendment''', also known as '''Constitutional Amendment 3''', was a {{lrcafull}} on the [[Louisiana 2012 ballot measures|November 6, 2012]] statewide ballot in [[Louisiana]], where it was '''approved'''.

+

+

The measure required more advance filing for bills involving public employee retirement. The measure was sent to the ballot during the [[Dates of 2012 state legislative sessions|2012 state legislative session]] as SB 21.

+

==Election results==

==Election results==

:: ''See also: [[2012 ballot measure election results]]''

:: ''See also: [[2012 ballot measure election results]]''

−

''LIVE election results will be posted when polls close on November 6, 2012 and when numbers start to roll in.''

{{Quote|Do you support an amendment to require legislation effecting any change to laws concerning retirement systems for public employees that is to be prefiled to be filed no later than forty-five days before the start of a regular legislative session and to require the completion of public notice requirements regarding legislation effecting such a change no later than sixty days before introduction of the bill?}}

+

+

==Support==

+

''No formal support was identified.''

−

<blockquote>Do you support an amendment to require legislation effecting any change to laws concerning retirement systems for public employees that is to be prefiled to be filed no later than forty-five days before the start of a regular legislative session and to require the completion of public notice requirements regarding legislation effecting such a change no later than sixty days before introduction of the bill?</blockquote>

+

==Opposition==

+

''No formal opposition was identified.''

==Media editorial positions==

==Media editorial positions==

===Support===

===Support===

−

* The '''Advocate''' said, "As strong advocates of public transparency, we support this amendment, but with reservations. Ideally, such matters of legislative housekeeping should be taken out of the state constitution entirely, and handled by legislative rules instead."<ref>[http://theadvocate.com/news/opinion/4176283-123/our-views-our-position-on ''Advocate'',"Our Views: Our position on amendments 3, 4 & 5," November 2, 2012]</ref>

+

* ''The Advocate'' said, "As strong advocates of public transparency, we support this amendment, but with reservations. Ideally, such matters of legislative housekeeping should be taken out of the state constitution entirely, and handled by legislative rules instead."<ref>[http://theadvocate.com/news/opinion/4176283-123/our-views-our-position-on ''Advocate'',"Our Views: Our position on amendments 3, 4 & 5," November 2, 2012]</ref>

Text of measure

Do you support an amendment to require legislation effecting any change to laws concerning retirement systems for public employees that is to be prefiled to be filed no later than forty-five days before the start of a regular legislative session and to require the completion of public notice requirements regarding legislation effecting such a change no later than sixty days before introduction of the bill?[2]

”

Support

No formal support was identified.

Opposition

No formal opposition was identified.

Media editorial positions

Support

The Advocate said, "As strong advocates of public transparency, we support this amendment, but with reservations. Ideally, such matters of legislative housekeeping should be taken out of the state constitution entirely, and handled by legislative rules instead."[3]